Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2017, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,352,042 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

Adam Smith said "there is a great deal of ruin in a Nation" meaning that a great nation could withstand many horrible decisions by its leaders and still survive.


Eventually I think the bad leadership presently running Seattle will catch up to the city, but for now Seattle trundles along. Seattle is still 'crane capital' of the U.S. But there is also rampant homelessness and other problems. I used to visit the city at least once a month, but haven't set foot there for over a year. I don't need to have my car vandalized or accidentally step in some human excrement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:26 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,443,387 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Because they're getting the exact same (if not more, e.g. means-tested public assistance wealth transfers) access to government services/benefits.

Except that government costs are determined - and thus inflated - by the non-poor government class. Why should a poor person have to pay high taxes to fund the inflated compensation of government workers paid 5x the poor person's wage for doing similar work?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:29 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,443,387 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Oh, so those who earn less than their "former owners" will somehow be able to afford them? Not likely.

A great feature of real property is that mansions WILL be sold to new owners, and occupied by the buyers, at SOME non-zero price. i.e. SOMEONE will buy and occupy mansions vacated by fleeing rich people. Funny how markets work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:33 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,443,387 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Why isn't everyone else required to pay "their fair share?" This is only for people earning over $250K (which really isn't all that much for the area). Who determines what their "fair share is?"
Why is someone a "jerk" if they object to taxes? Why should anybody be willing to fork over their money to liberals who want to spend it on their pet 'causes,' which keep growing in number and cost?


How do you know what may or may not be a burden on someone?



Typical liberal logic: You should pay more for the privilege of living in such a place.
Is it for you to decide what won't affect their 'lifestyle?'
I know of a lot of wealthy people who left New York because of the high taxes, so not everyone is as "happy to pay more" as you claim.



Now that would depend on how the city manages it's money, would it not? There are cities going bankrupt because of poor money management.

Your arguments are flawed, but typical of Leftists who love to spend other peoples money.

In places like Seattle, rent serfs already pay "their fair share" - it's just that they pay it to middleman landlords, who in turn pay taxes to government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:36 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,788,307 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress View Post
Tax the rich enough and they will leave -- because they can afford to -- unlike middle class and poor who are stuck.
Yep. They overlook that reality. Silly Dems... They "emote" instead of thinking logically and rationally, and never think things through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:39 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,443,387 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I agree. But as housing prices decrease, Seattle will collect less in tax revenue. And adding only lower-income residents will cost them more in social services. Result: services would have to be cut.

Ah, the conundrum of federalism's race to the bottom: the poor have to live SOMEWHERE, but all governments have an incentive to steer the poor Somewhere Else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:40 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,443,387 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
250K a year in Seattle is not "rich".

It is to those living on less than one-tenth of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 05:41 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,788,307 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Except that government costs are determined - and thus inflated - by the non-poor government class.
Nope. It's exactly the opposite. Just look at all the means-tested federal government public assistance programs. They all have huge bureaucracies running them. Eliminate them, and a huge cost of government would be eliminated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 06:33 AM
 
17,400 posts, read 11,969,121 times
Reputation: 16152
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
A great feature of real property is that mansions WILL be sold to new owners, and occupied by the buyers, at SOME non-zero price. i.e. SOMEONE will buy and occupy mansions vacated by fleeing rich people. Funny how markets work.
And yet, it still won't be you buying that house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 08:27 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,652,271 times
Reputation: 2522
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD View Post
This is a complete mischaracterization.

People on the right aren't against assistance for the poor.
If that is true why does Donald Trumps budget "cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor, while slicing $192 billion from nutritional assistance and $272 billion over all from welfare programs" ?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/u...dget-cuts.html

Quote:
Second, people on the right aren't going around hoping for low wages on anybody.
Republicans don't hope for low wages, instead they stop all legislation that would raise worker wages.

GOP blocks minimum-wage hike | TheHill

Quote:
If your service provides a lot of value, your wages will be high. If it provides low value, your wages will be low. "Righties" don't hope for you to have low wages. They hope you are paid every penny you are worth.
The sole purpose of business is to make money, and a business will naturally pay its workers the lowest wage possible to increase profits. Workers are not paid every penny they are worth, workers are paid the lowest wages business can pay them.

Quote:
Third, people on the right would like to see low taxes for everybody, not just the wealthy.
Then why did the Bush tax cuts give the 20% of Americans making up the middle class 6% of the tax cuts, and then give the richest 1% of Americans 51% of the tax cuts?
Bush Tax Cuts After 2002: June 2002 CTJ Analysis

And why do Donald Trumps proposed tax cuts raise low income workers after-tax income by 0.8%, and then raise the richest 1% of Americans after-tax income by 13.5% (and raise the richest 0.1% of Americans after-tax income by 14.2%) ??
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...nalysis-finds/

Quote:
That said, I have a friend from Seattle and we were discussing this tax over drinks a couple of weeks ago. He will be paying more with this new tax than most wealthy people earn in a year. He didn't seem to mind it though and I didn't expect he would. He is a liberal, hippy, surfer guy. I like him in spite of it.
And I would assume that he likes you as well, even though you support a political party that wants to cut billions of dollars in needed assistance for the poor, pollute the environment to increase corporate profits, and add $20.7 trillion dollars to our national debt in the next 20 years by giving the richest 1% of Americans huge tax cuts (it sounds as if the 2 of you are true friends.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#726ddaac6554


I apologize if I was rude, have a good one AnesthesiaMD,
Chad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top